Reading Between the Lines: Authority Gradients in Rail Incident Investigations
Tracks
Room 2
| Monday, November 30, 2026 |
| 3:30 PM - 3:50 PM |
| Concurrent Room 1 |
Overview
Prof Anjum Naweed
Speaker
Professor Anjum Naweed
CQUniversity Adelaide
Reading Between the Lines: Authority Gradients in Rail Incident Investigations
Abstract
Aims
Authority gradients are imbalances in perceived power or status that can inhibit speaking up, suppress challenge, and compromise safety-critical communication. While widely recognised in industries such as aviation and healthcare, their role in rail remains poorly articulated and is often subsumed under broader concepts such as communication failure or non-technical skills. This study examined the extent to which authority gradients are identified, described, and understood within real-world rail incident investigation reports.
Methods
A cross-jurisdictional systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis was conducted on rail incident investigation reports published between 2013 and 2022 by formal investigation agencies in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. Following PRISMA-guided screening of 786 reports, 48 incidents involving teamwork and communication factors were analysed. A typology of authority gradient presentation was developed to examine explicit and non-explicit forms of recognition within investigation findings and analyses.
Results
Explicit reference to authority gradients was rare, with only one investigation formally attributing the phenomenon as a contributory factor. However, behaviours strongly associated with authority gradients were identified across numerous reports. The most prevalent included failure to challenge, conformity and pressure to comply, reluctance to question decisions, and deference to more senior or experienced personnel. In many cases, investigations identified communication breakdowns or non-technical skills deficiencies without examining the underlying relational dynamics that may have inhibited speaking up or dissent. Jurisdictional differences were also evident in how interpersonal and organisational influences on communication were conceptualised and attributed.
Discussion/Implications
Findings suggest that authority gradients are frequently present but under-recognised in rail incident investigations. Characterising incidents primarily as communication failures obscure the psychosocial and relational factors influencing team interaction and decision-making. Greater consideration of authority gradients within investigation frameworks may support deeper systems learning and enhance understanding of how organisational hierarchies shape safety-critical communication in rail operations.
Authority gradients are imbalances in perceived power or status that can inhibit speaking up, suppress challenge, and compromise safety-critical communication. While widely recognised in industries such as aviation and healthcare, their role in rail remains poorly articulated and is often subsumed under broader concepts such as communication failure or non-technical skills. This study examined the extent to which authority gradients are identified, described, and understood within real-world rail incident investigation reports.
Methods
A cross-jurisdictional systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis was conducted on rail incident investigation reports published between 2013 and 2022 by formal investigation agencies in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. Following PRISMA-guided screening of 786 reports, 48 incidents involving teamwork and communication factors were analysed. A typology of authority gradient presentation was developed to examine explicit and non-explicit forms of recognition within investigation findings and analyses.
Results
Explicit reference to authority gradients was rare, with only one investigation formally attributing the phenomenon as a contributory factor. However, behaviours strongly associated with authority gradients were identified across numerous reports. The most prevalent included failure to challenge, conformity and pressure to comply, reluctance to question decisions, and deference to more senior or experienced personnel. In many cases, investigations identified communication breakdowns or non-technical skills deficiencies without examining the underlying relational dynamics that may have inhibited speaking up or dissent. Jurisdictional differences were also evident in how interpersonal and organisational influences on communication were conceptualised and attributed.
Discussion/Implications
Findings suggest that authority gradients are frequently present but under-recognised in rail incident investigations. Characterising incidents primarily as communication failures obscure the psychosocial and relational factors influencing team interaction and decision-making. Greater consideration of authority gradients within investigation frameworks may support deeper systems learning and enhance understanding of how organisational hierarchies shape safety-critical communication in rail operations.
Biography
Anjum Naweed is a Professor of Human Factors at the Appleton Institute in Adelaide, South Australia. He is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, having gained his PhD in Psychology from the University of Sheffield in 2011. Anjum’s research interests centre on safety, complex decision-making, systems thinking, and storytelling. He has co-edited books, published over 175 peer-reviewed articles, and secured more than AU$8.3 million in research funding. He serves as Scientific Editor for Applied Ergonomics, and his work has received numerous accolades, including two Vice-Chancellor’s Awards for Outstanding Researcher of the Year. Most recently, he was awarded Simulation Australia’s Lifetime Membership for his outstanding contributions to science, technology, and education.
